Bickman’s Uniform Study (1974)

Bickman’s 1974 study tested whether a uniform alone makes strangers obey. On a Brooklyn street, a man in a guard’s uniform, a milkman’s outfit or a jacket and tie gave pedestrians small orders. People obeyed the guard far more often than the others, even when he was out of sight. It is a classic field experiment, run in real life.

Aim

Bickman wanted to know whether a uniform on its own makes strangers do what they are told. He also wanted to know why. Did people obey out of fear of being caught? Or did the uniform suggest that the person had the right to give orders?

The right to give orders is called legitimate authority. Obeying means doing what you are told by someone in authority.

To test fear of being caught, Bickman had the guard walk away in a second experiment. He was then out of sight, so he could not see who obeyed.

These aims can be put as three questions. The wording here is ours, not Bickman’s.

• The Effect: Do pedestrians obey a guard more often than a milkman or a civilian giving the same order?
• The Reason: Does the guard’s power depend on being watched, as fear of punishment would, or work unwatched, as legitimate authority would?
• The Perception: Do people say a guard is more legitimate, or more likely to be obeyed, than a civilian or a milkman?

Method

Design and Variables

Bickman ran three experiments. The first two were field experiments: experiments run in a real-life setting, where people do not know they are taking part. The third used questionnaires with students.

In outline, a man in one of three outfits stopped a stranger and gave a small order. In a second experiment he stayed in sight or walked out of sight.

Each version of an experiment, such as a guard or a civilian, is called a condition. Every experiment has two kinds of variable. The independent variable is what the researcher changes. The dependent variable is what the researcher measures.

The table lists them for each experiment. The outfits and orders are described below. Bickman did not use the labels independent variable and dependent variable. Independent-groups design and opportunity sample are our labels.

Experiment	Independent variable	Dependent variable
I: field experiment	The experimenter’s dress (civilian, milkman or guard) and the kind of order (bag, dime or bus stop).	Whether the pedestrian obeyed, as the percentage who obeyed.
II: field experiment	The experimenter’s dress (guard or civilian) and whether he stayed in sight or walked out of sight.	Whether the pedestrian gave the dime, as a percentage.
III: questionnaires	Who was described giving the order (a young man, a milkman or a guard).	The legitimacy rating, and whether students said they and others would obey.

Bickman changed two things in Experiment I, the clothes and the order. The clothes were the main thing he was testing. So in an exam, name the clothes as the independent variable and obeying as the dependent variable.

Each pedestrian was stopped once, by one experimenter, in one outfit, with one order. So the comparisons are between different groups of people. This is called an independent-groups design.

Participants

The sample is the group of people who take part. In Experiment I, the sample was 153 adult pedestrians on a street in the Flatbush area of Brooklyn, New York.

The experimenter chose the first person to come along who was alone. That person could not have seen the previous encounter.

This is called an opportunity sample, meaning whoever is available. The pedestrians were estimated to be aged between 18 and 61. Most were white. About 85 per cent were judged from their dress to be middle class (Bickman, 1974).

The Outfits

Four young men aged 18 to 20 played the experimenter. Each did about the same number of sessions in each outfit and with each order (Bickman, 1974).

So every outfit was worn by all four men.

• Civilian: A sports jacket and tie, chosen as the lowest authority.
• Milkman: White clothes and a basket of empty milk bottles, a uniform Bickman assumed people would recognise but see as carrying little authority.
• Guard: A uniform that may have looked like a police uniform at first glance, which matters later. The badge was different, and he carried no gun.

The Three Orders

Each man gave one of three orders.

• Pick up the bag: He pointed to a small paper bag and said, “Pick up this bag for me!”
• Give the dime: A dime is a ten-cent coin. He pointed to a man at a parking meter and said, “Give him a dime!”
• Move to the other side: He told a person alone at a bus stop, “Don’t you know you have to stand on the other side of the pole? The sign says ‘No Standing’.”

The man at the meter was a confederate, someone working with the experimenter. He had no change.

Bickman chose orders that mostly lay outside a guard’s job. A guard’s job gives them the right to give orders about security or parking. If people still obeyed, the uniform itself may have carried the power (Bickman, 1974).

The “No Standing” sign refers to cars, not people. If a pedestrian did not obey at once, the experimenter gave a reason. He had a bad back, he had no change either, or the bus would not stop there because of a new law.

Picking up the bag counted as obeying. So did giving the dime, or making a sincere effort to find change (Bickman, 1974).

The Out-of-Sight Test (Experiment II)

If people obeyed the guard out of fear of punishment, they should obey more when he could see them. Bickman relied on earlier work showing that fear of punishment works only if the person thinks they may be seen (Bickman, 1974).

Forty-eight pedestrians in another Brooklyn neighbourhood, Park Slope, heard the dime order from a guard or a civilian. Twelve were in each of four groups.

In one condition the order was given beside the meter, so the experimenter could see what happened. In the other he stopped the pedestrian about 50 feet away, pointed to the confederate at the meter, and walked out of sight round the corner.

The Questionnaires (Experiment III)

Bickman also asked students what they thought (Bickman, 1974).

In one questionnaire, 141 students rated how legitimate each of 29 street orders was, on a ten-point scale. Who gave the order varied. It was a young man, a milkman or a guard.

In the other, 189 different students each read one description of the bag, dime or bus-stop order. They said whether they would obey, and whether people in general would.

Results

Experiment I: Three Outfits, Three Orders

The percentages below show how many pedestrians obeyed each outfit, for each order (Bickman, 1974).

• Pick up the bag: guard 82%, milkman 64%, civilian 36%.
• Give the dime: guard 89% (as printed in the paper), milkman 57%, civilian 33%.
• Move to the other side: guard 56%, milkman 21%, civilian 20%.

89% of 20 pedestrians is not a whole number of people, so the printed figure may contain a small error.

The guard won on every order. He was about two to three times as likely to be obeyed as the civilian. The result was significant (Bickman, 1974). That means too big to put down to chance.

These percentages include pedestrians who obeyed only after the experimenter gave a reason. Only about a quarter obeyed straight away, with no reason given, and the guard led then too (Bickman, 1974).

Overall, the milkman did not differ significantly from the civilian, though he scored higher on the bag and the dime.

Only 14 met the milkman for each order. The guard’s uniform clearly raised obedience. The milkman’s did not clearly do so.

So the guard’s uniform mattered more than the milkman’s. That suggests wearing a uniform was not enough on its own (Bickman, 1974).

The bus-stop order was obeyed least, even by the guard. Bickman suggested this was probably because most New Yorkers know the sign applies to cars, not people (Bickman, 1974).

Experiment II: Being Watched

Overall, being watched made no difference to obedience.

When watched, 75 per cent obeyed the guard and 50 per cent the civilian.

Out of sight, 92 per cent obeyed the guard and 42 per cent the civilian (Bickman, 1974). The guard did at least as well unseen.

With only 12 pedestrians in each group, a modest effect of being watched could have gone undetected. The figures do not show an effect of being watched.

The guard again beat the civilian overall, 83 per cent to 46 per cent (Bickman, 1974).

Five pedestrians interviewed after meeting the guard said it was fine to be asked and that they had nothing to fear from him (Bickman, 1974).

Experiment III: What the Students Said

In one questionnaire, the three field orders showed no uniform effect on the legitimacy ratings (Bickman, 1974).

In the other, the uniform had no effect on what students predicted for themselves or for other people (Bickman, 1974).

For the three field orders, the uniform did not change what students said or expected. On the street it changed what people did.

Why Did the Guard’s Uniform Work?

Legitimate Authority or Fear?

Being watched made no difference. So fear of being caught was an unlikely reason for the guard’s extra power (Bickman, 1974).

Bickman also judged other reasons unlikely, such as people admiring the guard or thinking the guard knew best (Bickman, 1974).

That left legitimate authority. Bickman argued that a guard has a responsible, useful job and is generally trusted. So people are more likely to take a guard seriously (Bickman, 1974).

Picture a stranger in a jacket and tie telling you to hand a dime to someone. You might dismiss him as a crank.

Legitimacy was never measured. It is the explanation left standing once the others were ruled out.

Why the Questionnaires and the Street Disagreed

Students said the uniform would make no difference. On the street it did. Bickman suggested that what people predict they would do when faced with authority is a poor guide to what they do (Bickman, 1974).

Bickman also said the comparison is tentative, for three reasons.

• More Serious: Students reading a questionnaire probably took the orders more seriously and could not dismiss them as a prank.
• No Real Feeling: They may not have been able to feel the annoyance or fear a real pedestrian might feel.
• Different People: The students may differ from people stopped in the street.

Conclusion

Bickman (1974) drew three conclusions.

1. Guard’s Uniform Raised Obedience: The guard’s uniform produced more obedience than the milkman’s or ordinary clothes. Not every uniform worked: the milkman’s carried no significant extra power.
2. Being Watched Did Not Matter: Because being watched changed nothing, fear of punishment was an unlikely explanation.
3. Legitimacy, by Elimination: After ruling out other reasons, he judged that legitimate authority was the most plausible basis. He did not measure it.

Bickman said the questionnaires cast some doubt on the legitimacy conclusion.

Strengths

The study has four main strengths:

1. Ecological Validity: Ecological validity means how well findings apply to real life. The study took place on real streets, so its ecological validity is high.
2. No Demand Characteristics: Demand characteristics are cues that let people guess what the researcher wants. Unaware pedestrians were less able to guess.
3. Repeated Results: The guard’s advantage held across three orders. The contrast with the civilian was repeated in a second neighbourhood with different experimenters (Bickman, 1974).
4. Tests Why, Not Only Whether: The out-of-sight test checked whether fear of being caught explained obedience. The milkman showed the guard’s uniform mattered more (Bickman, 1974).

Limitations

Before working through each one, here is a one-line summary of the main limitations:

1. Legitimacy by Elimination: Bickman never measured legitimacy, and the guard’s possibly police-like look leaves fear of enforcement open as an explanation.
2. Small Groups: The key out-of-sight test had only 12 pedestrians per group, so the evidence is weaker than it looks.
3. Mixed Meanings: Only a quarter of pedestrians obeyed without a reason, so the study mixes obedience with persuasion, and the outfits differed in more than the uniform.
4. Generalisability: The study used two neighbourhoods in one American city in the early 1970s, and every experimenter was a man.
5. Small Requests: The orders were harmless, so the study cannot show obedience to a harmful order.

Legitimacy Reached by Elimination

Bickman never measured legitimacy in the field experiments. He reached it by ruling out other reasons. Legitimacy was what remained (Bickman, 1974).

The guard’s uniform may also have looked like a police uniform. So fear of the police could still play a part. The out-of-sight test makes fear of being observed unlikely. It does not rule out every way fear of a guard could operate.

The questionnaires also gave no sign that the guard seemed more legitimate. Bickman acknowledged the doubt.

Small Groups

The second experiment had only 12 pedestrians in each condition (Bickman, 1974). With groups that small, a modest effect of being watched could have gone undetected. So the evidence is weaker than it looks.

The same caution applies to the milkman. He scored higher than the civilian on the bag and the dime, yet the difference was reported as not significant. Only 14 pedestrians met the milkman for each order.

Mixed Meanings in the Orders

Only 25 per cent obeyed with no explanation (Bickman, 1974). Many of those who did obey did so only after a reason was given, such as a bad back or a new law.

Bickman noted that these reasons may have turned an order into a request for help. So a large share of the obedience came after persuasion, meaning after the experimenter gave a reason. The study mixes obedience with persuasion.

The outfits also differed in more than the uniform. The milkman carried a basket of bottles, and the guard’s outfit may have suggested the police. Any difference in obedience could reflect those details as well as the uniform itself.

Generalisability: Sample, Place and Era

Generalisability means how far the results apply beyond the people, place and time studied. Here the limits are clear.

The study used two neighbourhoods in one American city, with 153 pedestrians in the main experiment. It took place in the early 1970s. The era, or time period, may matter, because findings can depend on when a study was done (AQA, n.d.).

Most pedestrians were white and judged middle class. A sample that does not represent everyone is called sample bias. Results from one city may not apply to other places.

Every experimenter was a young man. Bushman (1988) later used a woman as the requester and found that a uniform raised obedience, though that report is known here only from its abstract.

Small Requests

The orders were small. Obeying cost very little. It meant a dime, a few steps or a bag.

The study shows that a uniform raises obedience to mild requests. It does not show that a uniform would produce obedience to a harmful order (Bickman, 1974).

Milgram’s laboratory study used a harmful command, so the two studies answer different questions (Milgram, 1963). Bickman’s result should not be stretched to harmful orders.

Ethical Issues

The study raises four ethical points, though the risks were mild.

• Informed Consent: Informed consent means agreeing to take part after being told what will happen. The pedestrians were not told it was a study, so they could not give it.
• Deception: Deception means misleading participants. AQA mark schemes credit deception as an ethical point in a similar uniform study (AQA, n.d.), so not telling pedestrians it was a study could count as deception.
• Debriefing Not Described: Debriefing means explaining the study to participants afterwards. The paper describes interviewing only five, so wider debriefing is not described (Bickman, 1974).
• Mild Risks: The risks were annoyance or a wasted dime. They were far smaller than in Milgram’s laboratory studies. There the command was harmful (Milgram, 1963).

Exam Questions

What Examiners Look For

The AQA GCSE Psychology Paper 2 mark schemes for 2020 to 2025 and the specimen paper do not name Bickman. They do test the idea his study illustrates. A uniform is a symbol of authority, and people are more likely to obey someone in uniform (AQA, 2023).

So Bickman is an example you can use. The questions and mark schemes on this page are our own, written in the style of the exams. The “Imagine” questions use invented data.

These are the question types the AQA mark schemes use.

• Calculate a Percentage (2 marks): Turn a count out of the group size into a percentage, and show the working (AQA, n.d.).
• Explain a Difference (2 marks): One mark for naming the uniform. One for explaining that it suggests the right to give orders, which is legitimate authority (AQA, n.d.).
• Evaluate in Two Ways (4 marks): Ethical points, such as informed consent, and methodological points, such as ecological validity, are credited (AQA, n.d.).
• Apply Obedience Factors (4 marks): Half the marks are for knowledge and half for application. Credited factors include authority, proximity and symbols of authority such as a uniform (AQA, 2022).
• Describe and Evaluate (9 marks): Four marks for the method, results and conclusion, and five for evaluation, marked by levels. Evaluation can cover sample, setting, validity, ethics and era (AQA, n.d.).
• Design a Study (6 marks): State the independent and dependent variables, a standardised procedure and why it helps, and the expected results (AQA, 2020).
• Ethical Issues (4 marks): Name two ethical issues and a way of dealing with each, for two marks each (AQA, 2020).

Practice Question 1: Calculate a Percentage (2 marks)

Imagine a study, with invented numbers that are not Bickman’s. An actor asks 30 people to pick up litter while wearing a uniform. He asks 30 other people while wearing ordinary clothes. In the uniform condition, 18 people do it. In the ordinary clothes condition, 6 do.

Question: Calculate the percentage of people who obeyed in each condition. Show your working. [2 marks]

Model answer: uniform, 18 ÷ 30 × 100 = 60%. Ordinary clothes, 6 ÷ 30 × 100 = 20%.

• Mark scheme: 1 mark for each correct percentage, with working shown.

Practice Question 2: Explain a Difference (2 marks)

Use the same invented litter study.

Question: Explain why more people obeyed in the uniform condition. [2 marks]

Model answer: The actor wore a uniform. A uniform suggests that the person has the right to give orders, which is legitimate authority. So people were more likely to obey.

• Mark scheme: 1 mark for naming the uniform. 1 mark for explaining that a uniform suggests legitimate authority, the right to give orders.

Practice Question 3: Evaluate in Two Ways (4 marks)

Question: Explain two ways Bickman’s study can be evaluated. [4 marks]

Model answer: One ethical issue is informed consent. The pedestrians did not know they were in a study, so they could not agree to take part.

One strength is ecological validity. The study took place on real streets, so the results are likely to apply to real life.

• Mark scheme: 2 marks for each way: 1 for naming a creditable point and 1 for explaining it using the study.
• Creditable Points: Any two score, for example an ethical one (informed consent) and a methodological one (ecological validity).

Practice Question 4: Apply Obedience Factors (4 marks)

Imagine a new lunchtime supervisor at a school. She wears ordinary clothes. Pupils ignore her when she tells them to stop running in the corridor.

Question: Use your knowledge of obedience to explain why pupils might ignore her. [4 marks]

Model answer: People are more likely to obey someone with authority. A uniform is a symbol of authority. In Bickman’s study, pedestrians obeyed a guard in uniform more than a civilian in ordinary clothes.

The supervisor’s ordinary clothes give no sign that she has the right to give orders. So pupils may not see her as a legitimate authority. A uniform might make them more likely to obey her.

• Mark scheme: 2 marks for knowledge, such as authority, a uniform as a symbol of authority, or supporting detail from Bickman’s study. 2 marks for applying it to the supervisor’s clothes and legitimate authority.

Practice Question 5: Design an Experiment (6 marks)

Question: Design an experiment to test whether a uniform makes people obey. [6 marks]

Model answer: The independent variable is the experimenter’s clothing, a uniform or ordinary clothes. The dependent variable is whether the person obeys, such as the number of people who pick up the bag.

Everyone gets the same order in the same words, such as “Pick up this bag for me”. This is a standardised procedure. It makes the test fair, because only the clothing differs.

I expect more people to obey the experimenter in uniform. A uniform suggests legitimate authority, so people feel the person has the right to give orders.

• Mark scheme: 1 mark each for the independent variable, the dependent variable, a standardised procedure and why it helps.
• Expected Result: 2 marks, 1 for the prediction and 1 for the reason.

Practice Question 6: Describe and Evaluate Bickman’s Study (9 marks)

Question: Describe and evaluate Bickman’s study of obedience. [9 marks]

The 9 marks are 4 for describing the method, results and conclusion and 5 for evaluation. Here is a model answer of about 270 words.

Bickman (1974) was a field experiment on a Brooklyn street. The sample was 153 adult pedestrians. A man dressed as a guard, a milkman or a civilian gave each one an order.

They had to pick up a bag, give a dime to a stranger, or move to the other side of a bus-stop pole.

The guard was obeyed most on every order. For the bag, 82% obeyed the guard and 36% the civilian.

In a second experiment, the guard sometimes walked out of sight. At least as many pedestrians still obeyed him. Bickman concluded that the guard’s uniform most likely signalled legitimate authority, the right to give orders.

One strength is ecological validity. The study took place on real streets, so the results are likely to apply to real life. The pedestrians did not know it was a study, so they were less able to guess what the researcher wanted.

One weakness is generalisability. The sample came from one American city in the early 1970s. Most pedestrians were white, and all the experimenters were men. The results may not apply to other places, times or groups.

A second weakness is ethics. The pedestrians did not know they were in a study, so they could not give informed consent. The paper describes interviewing only five afterwards, so wider debriefing is not described.

A third weakness is that Bickman never measured legitimate authority. He reached it by ruling out other reasons, so it is only the most likely explanation.

The orders were small, so the risks were mild, but the study cannot show that people would obey a harmful order from someone in uniform.

Examiners mark by levels on a best-fit basis. They pick the band that best matches the whole answer, so the bands below are a guide to the total out of 9.

• Describing, 4 marks: Accurate description of the method, the results and the conclusion. Include the setting, the sample, the outfits and orders, and a result.
• Evaluating, 5 marks: Evaluation points that are explained and linked to Bickman, not just named. Examples are ecological validity, sample and era, and ethics.
• Top band, 7 to 9 marks: Accurate, detailed description. At least two evaluation points, each explained and linked to the study.
• Middle band, 4 to 6 marks: Mostly accurate description, with some detail missing. One or two evaluation points, partly explained.
• Bottom band, 1 to 3 marks: Little accurate description. Evaluation is only named, or generic and not linked to Bickman.

Practice Question 7: Ethical Issues and How to Deal with Them (4 marks)

Question: Name two ethical issues in a study like Bickman’s. Give one way of dealing with each. [4 marks]

Model answer: One issue is informed consent. The pedestrians did not know they were in a study. A way of dealing with this is to explain what people will be taking part in and ask if they are happy to do so.

Another issue is debriefing. The paper describes interviewing only five people afterwards. A way of dealing with this is to debrief everyone afterwards by explaining the study.

• Mark scheme: 2 marks for each issue: 1 for naming a creditable issue and 1 for a way of dealing with it.
• Creditable Issues: Issues include informed consent, parental consent, deception, the right to withdraw, protection from harm, confidentiality and debriefing (AQA, 2020).
• Creditable Ways: Ways include explaining what people will take part in and asking if they are happy, using a number not a name, asking parents if under 16, and debriefing (AQA, 2020).

Later Research

Street Replications (Bushman, 1984, 1988)

Two later field studies are known here only from their published abstracts.

Bushman (1984) repeated the dime study. He found that the requester’s dress affected compliance, meaning doing what is asked.

Bushman (1988) used a woman as the requester. She wore a uniform, professional clothing or sloppy clothing and told people to give change to a person at an expired parking meter. Compliance was higher when she wore a uniform (Bushman, 1988).

How Does Bickman’s Study Compare with Milgram’s?

Bickman and Milgram

Bickman noted that laboratory obedience such as Milgram’s obedience experiment is probably based on legitimate authority too, but the two studies put it in different places (Bickman, 1974; Milgram, 1963).

Dimension	Milgram (1963)	Bickman (1974)
Setting	A laboratory.	An ordinary street.
Source of authority	The setting and the experimenter’s role.	A uniform, with no link to the order given.
The order	A harmful command.	A small, harmless request.
What it shows	Obedience to authority in a laboratory.	A uniform can raise obedience in everyday life.

Bickman moves the question from laboratory authority to the everyday signals of authority.

His study is consistent with the view that legitimate authority is a strong ingredient of obedience. It also suggests a symbol can matter even when the order has nothing to do with the symbol’s job.

Hofling’s nurse study is another field study of obedience.

References

AQA. (n.d.). GCSE Psychology 8182/2: Specimen mark scheme. AQA.

AQA. (2020). GCSE Psychology paper 2 (8182/2): Mark scheme, June 2020. AQA.

AQA. (2022). GCSE Psychology paper 2 (8182/2): Mark scheme, June 2022. AQA.

AQA. (2023). GCSE Psychology paper 2 (8182/2): Mark scheme, June 2023. AQA.

Bickman, L. (1974). The social power of a uniform. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1974.tb02599.x

Bushman, B. J. (1984). Perceived symbols of authority and their influence on compliance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14(6), 501–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1984.tb02255.x

Bushman, B. J. (1988). The effects of apparel on compliance: A field experiment with a female authority figure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(3), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167288143004

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525